olegt
Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
nullasalus starts another thread, Did Darwin Undercut All Paley-Style Arguments? The title itself is hilarious: according to the party line, ID is so totally, completely different from Paley's approach.
But you have every right to expect that it gets even more hilarious, given that the only two participants in the thread are null and vjtorley, the former well-known for his pretzel logic, totally twisted and full of holes, the latter for his prodigious writings with titles like St. Thomas Aquinas and his Fifteen Smoking Guns (Part One of a five-part reply to Professor Tkacz)*. Fifteen smoking guns! Just imagine that!
Anyway, back at the ranch, the two wax philosophical about everything and nothing, making astonishing conclusions along the way. Like this one:
| Quote | Regarding Genesis: I take your point that it’s unwise to second-guess God. I also completely agree that animals have a place in God’s plan, regardless of their usefulness to man. That does not negate the fact that they were made for man, which Genesis teaches. On that score, the mere fact that they can be known and studied by man is enough.
As to why they needed to be made before man: I have already given one reason, not related to diet (humans, as the crown of creation, should come last), but here’s another, which takes as its starting point the assumption that God wants us to understand ourselves. Human beings are chordates – in particular, vertebrates. They are also mammals. On top of that, they are primates. I could go on, but my point is: we could never make these classifications (and hence understand ourselves properly) if other animals in these categories did not exist. |
Got that? The Bearded Dude made animals before man so that we could classify them. He is so totally right! Imagine how difficult it would be to classify animals that have not yet been made!
I so look forward to seeing null respond to this nonsense with a straight face.
*And did you know that you can also get a long version of that? Here: Aquinas' Fifteen "Smoking Guns" (The long version of Part One of my reply to Professor Tkacz).
--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »
|
